Italians are beginning to recognize the problem. Over the past decade, the government has passed laws targeting everything from workplace discrimination to accessibility requirements. A recent study by the European Union found that 85 percent of Italians admit that public transportation and infrastructure (基础设施) are inadequate for the handicapped, and 97 percent say action is needed. But the biggest barrier is psychological. “Italian companies are afraid of hiring disabled people,” says Chiapello. The only way to alter that, he says, is for Italy’s disabled to do what he did--- get out of the house and demand change. (318 words)

　　46. Which of the following words best describes “mama’s boys”?

　　A. Ordinary.

　　B. Optimistic.

　　C. Dependent.

　　D. Desirable.

　　47. In this passage, Chiapello is cited as an example of ______.

　　A. unusual disabled Italians

　　B. courageous blind sailors

　　C. typical handicapped people

　　D. vulnerable disabled Europeans

　　48. In Italy, where are the disabled people most likely to be?

　　A. On the street

　　B. At home

　　C. In school

　　D. At work

　　49. Italy’s general public will most probably agree that ______.

　　A. physical inadequacies are the biggest obstacle for the disabled

　　B. things should be done to remove the barriers against the disabled

　　C. workplace prejudices toward the disabled are hardly recognizable

　　D. disabled people should reduce the need of going to public places

　　50. What is the passage mainly about?

　　A. Italy has not enough in aiding the disabled.

　　B. Italy’s disabled people should get out of their houses.

　　C. Italian people have been blind to troubles of the disabled.

　　D. Italian ways of aiding the disabled should be encouraged.

Passage Four

　　The average number of authors on scientific papers is sky-rocketing. That’s partly because labs are bigger, problems are more complicated, and more different subspecialties are needed. But it’s also because U.S. government agencies have started to promote “team science.” As physics developed in the post-World War Ⅱ era, federal funds built expensive national facilities, and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally.

　　Yet multiple authorship --- however good it maybe in other ways --- presents for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work. For the journals, long lists of authors are hard to deal with in themselves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, how should the liability be allocated among the authors? If there is an honest mistake in one part of the work but not in others, how should an evaluator aim his or her review?

　　Various practical or impractical suggestions have emerged during the long-standing debate on this issue. One is that each author should provide, and the journal should then publish, an account of that author’s particular contribution to the work. But a different view of the problem, and perhaps of the solution, comes as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions, which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road. Half a lifetime of involvement with this process has taught me how much authorship matters. I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names, agonize over whether a much-cited paper was really the candidate’s work or a coauthor’s, and send back recommendations asking for more specificity about the division of responsibility.